there's been an effort for the last few years by various atheist groups to remove religion from the military. they have gone after chaplains, they went after the AF academy, now they are going after individuals who are Christians. they claim it's a separation issue, but have specifically gone after Christians and christian groups. even if they stuck to the separation issue, it's a bogus claim.

in the past, even the chaplains have told them to shove off. unfortunately, we now have different leadership. this leadership is what invited Weinstein in to give advice. this pretty much tells you where our current leadership is, and how much support our military can expect from them.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

you should have read snopes all the way through. this is not a new thing in the military, it's just a more aggressive thing now. what i posted above is factual and if you do some real research, you'll find it to be so.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

it was some judicial stupidity too. a large part of the argument made, and decision made, was based on 1/2 of 1 correspondence between jefferson and the danbury baptist church. it the entire exchage had been considered, there is no way they could have come to the conclusion they claimed. jefferson had a lot to say about government and religion and if they were going to use him as an excuse, they should have considered all his writings.

Here are a few.

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808).

To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own (Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779).We have solved by fair experiment the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries (Letter to the Virginia Baptists, 1808).

Among the most inestimable of our blessings is that...of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support (Reply to Baptist Address, 1807).

and then there is that pesky thing called the cosntitution, which has no seperation of church and state in it, and it an instruction to congress, no more...no less.

1st amendment to the constitution:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

The two groups that are trying to destroy this country from within are the Communist and the Muslims. And one of the tools they are using is the destruction the Christian religion. And it looks like this administration is helping everyway it can. And I don't really wonder why because I think I know why.

It looks to me like all they are trying to do is to stop religious based harassment.

"What it comes down to, officials said, is that discussing matters of faith and religious practice with a willing audience is allowed, but pushing religious beliefs on those who don’t want to hear it is a form of harassment forbidden under Defense Department policies."

This is especially important in situations like the military where there is a potential for abuse by those in command of others. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a situation where I had to put up with having a superior pushing their religious beliefs on me.

It looks to me like all they are trying to do is to stop religious based harassment.

you could make that case if this were isolated. you might make the claim if they hadn't picked a rabidly anti christian person to be involved in the discussions.

this has been going on for a long time. it's part of the atheists separation agenda. an agenda that only seems to apply to Christians. they have gone after chaplains and how they do their sermons, and after groups that minister to service members. you might think that if a military member has gone to a service they want to hear the sermon?seems logical.

the reason this caught the attention of folks is causeless weinstein was included in the talks about religion in the military. one of the reason the AF felt they needed to have the discussion is because of weinstein and his repeated attacks on the military. maybe because he was an AF officer. he went after the AF toy drive because he said it had "evangelical roots". he tried to get one of the army generals a court martial for suggesting that the military print a bible in arabic. he got franklin graham uninvited from the pentagon prayer breakfast.

some of his nuggets of wisdom:Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.

'today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed forces. '

his definition of anyone who says anything negative about any of these groups. BTW, he supports the SPLC hate group list and would ban anyone who supports any group or belief on that list from the military. “We MUST vigorously support the continuing efforts to expose pathologically anti-gay, Islamaphobic, and rabidly intolerant agitators for what they are: die-hard enemies of the United States Constitution. Monsters, one and all. To do anything less would be to roll out a red carpet to those who would usher in a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, nationalistic militarism, and superstitious theocracy.”

"He described an individual's sharing of religious faith with other members of the military as 'spiritual rape. '"

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I certainly wouldn't want to be in a situation where I had to put up with having a superior pushing their religious beliefs on me.

interesting though, that it is perfectly fine to push anti-religious views on people.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I don't believe either belongs in the military, separation of church and state and all that. And I AM a religious person. I don't want other people's religions pushed on me or my kids, so I can't do the pushing on others, either.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

I don't believe either belongs in the military, separation of church and state and all that. And I AM a religious person. I don't want other people's religions pushed on me or my kids, so I can't do the pushing on others, either.

so we should get rid of chaplains in the military? the majority of the people i have known in the military of people of some kind of faith. it is my opinion that one of the reasons so many people of faith are comfortable serving and risking their lives is that they are confident about their afterlife. i also have known quite a few who, even not being very religious, were comforted by the prayers and comfort of other shipmates and the chaplains.

sharing is not forcing. if it were, i'd be able to force you to be a conservative :evil:

please show me that part of the constitution that refers to separation of church and state?

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

No, I don't think so. People should definitely be able to either embrace or reject religion. I haven't read the link and probably won't take the time to do so. I'm just saying if it were a situation where people felt forced in either direction, I wouldn't be okay with that.

I notice that many people are comfortable with religion and state mixed UNTIL a different religion than theirs is in the mix. I think that's hypocritical.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

I notice that many people are comfortable with religion and state mixed UNTIL a different religion than theirs is in the mix. I think that's hypocritical.

can you give some examples of that. and again...can you show me that part of the constitution that addresses separation of church and state?

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....